INTEGRATION OF DEMATEL AND AHP FOR MSW LAND … · 2017-04-15 · decomposing the complex decision making problem into a much simpler one by using the paired comparison s to weigh

P.Etraj*et al. /International Journal of Pharmacy & Technology

IJPT| April-2017| Vol. 9 | Issue No.1 | 28607-28623 Page 28607

ISSN: 0975-766X

CODEN: IJPTFI

Available Online through Research Article

www.ijptonline.com INTEGRATION OF DEMATEL AND AHP FOR MSW LAND DISPOSAL SITE SELECTION FOR GREATER

CHENNAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

P.Etraj, Dr.J.Jayaprakash,

Research Scholar, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dr.MGR Educational and Research Institute University,

Chennai – 600 095, Tamil Nadu, India.

Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dr.MGR Educational and Research Institute University, Chennai –

600 095, Tamil Nadu, India.

Email: [email protected]

Received on: 11-02-2017 Accepted on: 28-03-2017

Abstract

The sanitary landfill has been recognized as the cheapest form of disposing the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and also

been commonly adopted by every country in the world. However, selecting a suitable Landfill Disposal Sites (LDS) is an

extremely complex task mainly due to the fact that the identification and selection process involves many factors and

strict regulations. For proper identification and selection of suitable LDS needs very careful and systematic procedures.

Wrong sitting may result to environmental degradation and other consequences often lead to public opposition. As the

existing LDS has reached its saturation point, the Corporation of Chennai (CoC) is searching for alternate sites for

disposing of its MSW for current and future needs. Since, the present method of selection of LDS lack practical

applications, the authors made an attempt to develop a Multi Criteria Site Selection for MSW Disposal by Integrating

Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. The

proposed hybrid method is superior to existing methods since it has the capability of representing qualitative data and

presenting all possible results with different degrees of priority. The end results also shows that the integrated approach

of DEMATRL and AHP method is more precious than that of the individual approach.

Keywords: Municipal Solid Waste; Corporation of Chennai; Delphi Technique; Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation

Laboratory; Analytic Hierarchy Process.

1. Introduction

India generates about 1,33,760 Metric Tones Per Day (TPD) of MSW (MoEF Report). According to the definition from

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) MSW is composted by everyday items such as product packaging, grass

http://www.ijptonline.com/



clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers, appliances, paint, and batteries. Due to increase in

population, urbanization, change in life style and consumption pattern, the Municipal Solid Waste Management

(MSWM) in urban areas are become a tenacious problem for the waste managers[1]. The arising of MSW in Chennai,

the fourth largest metropolitan city in India, has increased from 600 to 4500 TPD during the last 20 years [2]. Urban

MSW is considered as one of the burning and serious environmental problems confronting for municipal authorities. As

the existing two LDS of CMA namely Kodungaiyur and Perungudi have reached their saturation point, the Corporation

of Chennai (CoC) is searching for alternate sites for disposing of its MSW for current as well as future needs. Sanitary

LDS selection needs to address not only the technical issues but also the political, legal, economic, environmental,

geological, hydrological as well as socio-economic, socio-political and socio-cultural factors[3]. Choosing the

appropriate LDS for MSW has already become a hot point for the decision-maker. This paper applies an effective

solution based on an integrated DEMATEL and AHP method[4,5] to assist the expert group for evaluating LDS selection

for CMA, since the degree of influence each criterion may differ, depending on the various ecological conditions. The

hybrid model of integrated DEMATEL and AHP in combination with Decision Delphi has been found to be a powerful

tool to solve the LDS selection problem, since the Decision Delphi Technique will help to converge the criteria and

DEMATEL will prioritize the criteria and finally AHP will rank the potential LDS[6].

2. Literature review

An extensive review literature on site-selection process shows that a number of researchers used the Geographical

Information System (GIS) to deal with the LDS selection process[7,8]. Identifying the LDS for urban solid waste

disposal made easy by using GIS and Remote Sensing(RS) techniques[9]. The article gives the detailed account of

optimizing the sitting technique for MSW landfills and its management issues. The assessment of the resident's

satisfaction level in MSW system gives more insight to researchers dealing with LDS site selection[10,11]. Selection of

LDS for MSW can be treated as one of the Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem, which requires the

consideration of a large number of complex criteria[12]. As such the researchers approached this issue by adopting the

multi-cretiria technique to improve the selection process [13,14]. A beefy MCDM method needs numerous factors and

the RAND Delphi Technique correlate judgments on a topic spanning a wide range of disciplines which aims to achieve

a convergence of opinion on a specific real-world issue[15]. A robust MCDM method needs to consider the interactions



among the influencing criteria and DEMATEL is one such tool which can evaluate such interaction among the

influencing factors[16]. DEMATEL will not only convert the relations between cause and effect of criteria into a

structural model, but also can be used as a way to handle the inner dependencies within a set of criteria[17]. AHP is

another relatively robust MCDM method which can be dealt with all kinds of interactions systematically by

decomposing the complex decision making problem into a much simpler one by using the paired comparisons to weigh

the criteria based on hierarchical structure which provides easiness during decision making[18]. Notably, the AHP

method has the advantages of yielding more precise results and verifying consistency of judgments[19]. In the current

research work the authors made an attempt to combine all these three methods for LDS selection process to get better

solution. The impact of the landfill leachete on ground water is a serious issues and several research papers addressed

this issue [20, 21, 22].

3. Study Area

Greater Chennai is city of Indian state Tamil Nadu located on the eastern coast (Latitude 13o 07‟ N and Longitude 80

o 16‟

E). The total area of Greater Chennai city is 174 square kilometer. Presently the CMA covers the CoC and 16 other

adjourning local bodies of Municipalities, Town Panchayats and Panchayat Unions. The present population of Greater

Chennai City is 6.5 millions and it has been estimated that each individual is generating 700 grams of solid wastes per

day. It has been estimated that 4500 TPD of solid waste generated in CMA, which are currently disposed in two LDS viz.

Kodungaiyur and Perungudi only.

As the existing two LDS have reached their saturation point, the CoC is searching for alternate sites for disposing its

MSW for current and future needs. The proposed LDS should adopt a multi-technology approach to deal with different

waste streams of MSW as listed below:

Biological Treatment (BT)- including composting and anaerobic digestion which would treat source-separated

biodegradable materials such as food waste;

Mechanical-Biological Treatment (MBT) - comprising mechanical and biological processes which recover

recyclable materials and treat biodegradable fraction from mixed waste;

Thermal Treatment – incinerating the unavoidable mixed waste not handled by biological treatment or MBT and

recovering the energy contained



4. Research Design

LDS selection is a difficult, complex, tedious, and protracted process requiring evaluation of many different criteria since

it has to combine social, environmental, technical, and financial factors. Economic factors must be considered in the

sitting of landfills, which include the costs associated with the acquisition, development, and operation of the site. Social

and political opposition to landfill sitting have been identified as the greatest obstacle for successfully locating the LDS.

The “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) and “not in anyone‟s backyard” (NIABY) syndrome are becoming a common

attitude and creating a tremendous pressure on the decision makers involved in the selection of a LDS. In the first phase

literature survey and interview are used for collecting the basic theoretical and practical information. The article

demonstrate that how the integration of two or more methods can produce better results than using only one method of

site selection[23].

The collected data are presented to an Expert Committee (EC) comprising of 4 academicians, 2 volunteers from NGO,

each one MSW planners from TNPCB, CoC and private conservancy firm contracted by the CoC. In the next phase

Delphi Technique has been applied to identify the influential factors on site selection of LDS for the MSW. In the third

phase DEMATEL method has been utilized to prioritize the influential factors. In the fourth phase AHP has been applied

with 6 fictitious LDS for the shortlisted factors are par wise compared with the Global weights as well as with the

Prioritized factors obtained through the DEMATEL. The consistency of the result is verified by sensitivity analysis. The

overall Site Selection Process involves three step procedures:

Establishing of selection criteria by Delphi Technique.

Prioritization of selection criteria by DEMATEL and

Evaluation of weight of criteria and ranking of site selection by AHP.

4.1 Hybrid DELPHI, DEMATEL and AHP

Research design used in this study using a hybrid Decision Delphi, DEMATEL and AHP methods. The LDS selection

process has been structured into three main phases as depicted in Figure 1.

The first is the input stage, where in Factors and Criteria for LDS selection will be established by Decision Delphi. In the

next stage Factors and Criteria will be prioritized through DEMATEL method. In the third stage weighting the criteria by

AHP and rank the sites.



Figure 1. Research Design of Hybrid DEMATEL and AHP

4.2 Establishment of Factors and Criteria

The RAND Decision Delphi technique is an important data collection methodology with a wide variety of

applications[6]. The EC members are immersed and imbedded in the topic of interest and can provide real-time and real-

world knowledge within their domain of expertise. Delphi technique is well suited for consensus-building by multiple

iterations on selected data and provides structured alternative anecdotal approach. Firstly factors and criteria obtained

from the literature review were presented to the EC to apply the Decision Delphi technique.

Round 1: The Decision Delphi process traditionally began with an open-ended questionnaire, which served as the

cornerstone of soliciting specific information about MSW subjects. The first round was started with 72 criteria under

nine factors. After the completion of first round, some criteria which were regarded as unimportant excluded from the

list.

Round 2: During the second round the areas of disagreement and agreement are identified. The second round starts with

7 factors and 59 criteria, and at the end 11 more criteria which were associated with none of the factors were excluded

from the list.

Round 3: In the third and last round, experts came to an agreement on the factors and criteria. More specifically 6

factors and 40 criteria associated with the LDS selection for MSW collected from CMA are determined and depicted in

Table 1.

Input

Establishing of SS Factors and Criteria through Decision DELPHI

Prioritizing of SS influencing Factors and Criteria by DEMATEL

Determination of relationship between the Criteria and Ranking of LDS by AHP

Output

Recommending the Site with highest Rank recommended for selection



Table 1, Establishment of Factors and Criteria

Sl.No

.

Factors F-Code Criteria C-Code

1. Receptor F1

Site capacity F1C1

Technical and operational F1C2

Lateral expansion F1C3

Type of approach road F1C4

Traffic nuisance F1C5

2. Distance F2

From waste generating zone. F2C1

Nearest residential locality F2C2

Nearest drinking water sources F2C3

Nearest public utility facility F2C4

Nearest religious sites F2C6

Nearest archaeological sites F2C7

Nearest coastal precinct F2C8

3. Environment F3

Odor, dust and noise nuisance F3C1

Threat to ecology F3C2

Risk of leachete leaking F3C3

Risk of explosive gases F3C4

Weather and Climate

F3C5

Threat to Flora and Fauna F3C6

Risk to contiguous area F3C8

Vector vulnerability F3C9

Spoil of vicinities air quality F3C10

Fire hazard and wind path F3C11

4.

Hydrology and

hydrogeology

F4

Ground water contamination F4C1

Wetlands F4C2

Floodplains F4C3

Soil permeability F4C4

Soil erosion risk F4C5

Slope pattern F4C6

Geomorphology F4C7

Topography F4C8

5.

Social,

Legal and

Political

F5

Vicinity‟s aesthetics F5C1

Public tolerability F5C2

Agreement with pressure

group

F5C3

Synchronize with local bodies F5C4

Concord with UNEP F5C5

Compliance to EPA 1986. F5C6

6. Financial F6

Land cost F6C1

Transportation costs F6C2

Operation and maintenance

cost

F6C3

Cost for after care F6C4



4.3 Priororitzion of Factors and Criteria

The DEMATEL method has been applied in 8 steps procedure as shown as Figure 2, formulating Direct Answer Matrix,

Original Average Matrix, Normalizing the Direct Influence Matrix, Deriving the Total Relation Matrix and deciding

threshold value to get the Cause and Effect Relationship diagram [16]. The Direct Answer Matrix for each dimensions

are to be constructed by the scores awarded by „m‟ Decision Makers (DM) with „n‟ factors. The degree to which the DM

perceived factor „i‟ affects on factor "j" is denoted by ak

ij. The integer score of „0‟ to „4‟ is assigned for each pairs as per

the values given in the Table 2.

Table 2, Score for Pair Wise Comparisons [16].

Sl.No. Degree of influence Score

1. No influence 0

2. Low influence 1

3. Medium influence 2

4. High influence 3

5. Very high influence 4

Figure 2 DEMATEL Application Procedure.



The sum of rows and the sum of columns of the total relation matrix „T‟ are denoted as vector „r‟ and vector „c‟. The sum

(ri+cj) gives an index called the „Position‟ representing the total effects both given and received by the ith

factor, ie, (ri+cj)

shows the degree of importance that the ith

factor plays in the system (total sum of effects given and received). The

difference (ri-cj) gives an index called the „Relation‟ shows the net effect, the ith

factor contributes to the system. If (ri-cj)

is positive, then ith

factor is a „net causer‟ and if (ri-cj) is negative, then ith

factor is a „net receiver‟. The Cause and Effect

Relationship diagram is constructed by mapping all coordinate sets of (ri+cj, ri-cj) to judge the significant factors and

their influence on other factors.

4.4 Ranking of Factors and Criteria.

Principle of Decomposition, Principle of Comparative Judgment and Principle of Synthesis of Priorities are the three

basic principles of AHP. In this article AHP is applied in nine steps as follows[19]:-

Step 1: Set-up Hierarchy: The basic linear hierarchical structure shown in Fig.3 is a top down approach consisting of

Goal (Level-1), Criteria (Level-2) and Alternatives (Level-3).

Figure 3, Model Linear Hierarchy of “AHP”

In this current research the „Goal‟ is to select an alternative LDS for CMA by pair-wise comparison with Factor/Criteria

shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: The Proposed Hierarchy Structure of “AHP”.

Fx1 or Fx1Cy Fx2 or Fx2Cy

Fx3 or Fx3Cy

Fx4 or Fx4Cy

Location „B‟

Fx5 or Fx5Cy

Location „E‟ Location „D‟ Location „A‟ Location „C‟

Suitable LDS for MSW



Step 2: Compare Criteria: The pair-wise comparison elements of one level with another level in their strength of

influence are made by collecting the data through survey conducted in MTC. The pair wise comparisons are rated by

nine point Saaty‟s scales for pair wise comparisons[18] as given in Table 3.

Table 3. The Saaty„S Scale [18].

Comparison Judgments Numerical value

Equally preferred 1

Moderately preferred 3

Strongly preferred 5

Very strongly preferred 7

Extremely preferred 9

Intermediate values 2,4,6 8

Reciprocals for inverse comparisons

Let C1,.., Cn are elements of some level in a hierarchy and w1,…, wn, are weights of influence on some elements in the

next level to be found. The elements of the matrix are selected representing judgment of pair-wise comparisons. If “aij ”

is the element of row “i" and column “j” of the matrix, then “1/aij” is the element of row “j” and column “i” of the

matrix. ie “aji=1/aij”. If the element “aij ” indicate the strength of “C1” when compared with “Cj”. This matrix is denoted

by matrix “A”. When “aji=1/aij”, matrix “A” becomes reciprocal. If judgment is perfect in all comparisons, then “aik = aij*

ajk”., for all i,j,k and the matrix “A” becomes consistent. The matrix

“A” has been shown as Figure 5.

Figure 5. Comparison Reciprocal Matrix.

Step 3: Priority Vector for Criteria: The pair-wise comparison reciprocal matrix is obtained by:-



i. Sum the values in each column of the pair-wise comparison reciprocal matrix.

ii. Divide each value by the corresponding column sum to get the “Normalized Matrix”.

iii. Average the values in each row of the normalized matrix and compute the “Priority Vector”.

Step 4: Compare Alternatives: Repeat the step “i" to “iii” for each alternatives.

Step 5: Priority Vector for Alternatives: Compute the overall score for each decision alternatives.

Step 6: Overall Priority Vector: Rank the decision alternatives, according to the magnitude.

Step 7: Consistency Index: CI=( λmax –n)/(n-1), where, λmax is the Principal Eigen value and “n” is the order of the

matrix.

Step 8: Consistency Ratio: CR = CI/RI, where RI is the Random Index as given in Table 5.

Table 5: Values for Random Index [18].

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RI 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49

Step 9: Check for Consistency: If 0≤ CR ≤ 0.1, then the judgment is perfectly consistent and the criteria/alternative can

be accepted and if CR>0.1, the judgment is inconsistent and untrustworthy. Hence it need to revise the subjective

judgment.

5. An Illustrative Case Application

The proposed hybrid model is demonstrated with the help of 6 conjured LDS to show that how suitable sites could be

identified and ranked by the combination of DEMATEL and AHP methods. MS-Excel spread sheet has been used for all

numerical calculations throughout this research work. This proposed technique allowed for an often qualitative

assessment of site selection to be replaced by a more quantitative, informed and unbiased method.

5.1 Applying DEMATEL on six Factors

Each Expert Committee members performed the pair-wise comparisons of 6 Factors and hence nine Direct Answer

Matrix are formulated as per the Step-1 of Fig.2. and Original Average Matrix „B‟ has been computed as per Step-2. The

Normalized Initial Direct Influence Matrix „D‟ has been computed by as per Step-3 and Total Relation Matrix „T‟ has

been computed as per Step-4 and presented in Table 6, 7 and 8.



Table 6: Positions and Relations Among Factors.

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 ri cj ri+ cj ri- cj

F1 1.18 1.29 1.33 1.24 1.14 1.34 7.52 8.77 16.29 -1.25

F2 1.24 1.31 1.27 1.34 1.19 1.42 7.77 8.69 16.46 -0.92

F3 1.69 1.73 1.81 1.75 1.83 1.74 10.55 8.92 19.47 1.63

F4 1.73 1.68 1.96 1.67 1.51 1.57 10.12 8.51 18.63 1.61

F5 1.64 1.56 1.34 1.37 1.49 1.64 9.04 8.29 17.33 0.75

F6 1.29 1.12 1.21 1.14 1.13 1.14 7.03 8.85 15.88 -1.82

The Cause and Effect Relationship (CER) among the six factors are constructed and shown in Fig.6.

Figure 6. Cause and Effect Relationship among the Six Factors.

5.2 Applying AHP to rank the sites

The AHP has been applied on the six factors and the Expert Committee members are acted upon the role of Decision

Makers (DM). Since AHP technique can be applied using different methods i.e. Eigen Vector/Value Method, Geometric

Mean Method and Arithmetic Mean Method. In this current research work Geometric Mean Method has applied and MS-

Excel spread sheet was used for arithmetic calculations.

Table 7: Preference (Pair-Wise Comparison) Normalized Matrix for Factors by Single Dm.

Factors F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 Sum Priority Vector

F1 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.46 0.08

F2 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.18 0.53 0.09

F3 0.31 0.30 0.35 0.39 0.39 0.27 2.01 0.34

F1

F2

F3F4

F5

F6-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

15 16 17 18 19 20



F4 0.23 0.22 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.18 1.20 0.20

F5 0.23 0.30 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.18 1.28 0.21

F6 0.08 0.04 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.52 0.09

Principal eign value λmax= 6.21

Consistency index (I)

0.04

Consistency Ratio (CR)

0.03 < 0.1

Table 8: Preference (Pair-Wise Comparison) Normalized Matrix for Factors by Dm Group

Factors F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 Sum Priority Vector

F1 0.06 0.03 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.36 0.07

F2 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.17 0.50 0.08

F3 0.31 0.38 0.38 0.45 0.33 0.33 2.18 0.32

F4 0.25 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.33 0.17 1.35 0.25

F5 0.19 0.31 0.19 0.11 0.16 0.17 1.13 0.221

F6 0.06 0.03 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.47 0.09

Principal eign value λmax= 6.35

Consistency index (I)

0.07

Consistency Ratio (CR)

0.06 < 0.1

Initially the ranking of LDS was formulated by applying the global weight obtained from AHP and results are presented

in Table 9.

Table 9: Ranking of LDS by AHP Global Weight

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 AHP Global Weight Priority Vector

Site A 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.08 06.79%

Site B 0.14 0.15 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.09 16.70%

Site C 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.31 0.22 0.25 0.34 25.52%

Site D 0.19 0.14 0.20 0.15 0.19 0.10 0.20 17.43%

Site E 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.26 0.28 0.21 22.42%

Site F 0.10 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.09 11.14%



Next the CER computed from the DEMATEL has been synthesized and applied to AHP as global weight to rank the

LDS. The results are presented in Table 10.

Table 10. Ranking of LDS by DEMATEL Global Weight

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6

DEMATEL Global

Weight

Priority

Vector

Site A 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.05 06.47%

Site B 0.14 0.15 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.06 16.30%

Site C 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.31 0.22 0.25 0.37 25.98%

Site D 0.19 0.14 0.20 0.15 0.19 0.10 0.21 18.01%

Site E 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.26 0.28 0.23 23.23%

Site F 0.10 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.08 10.01%

The comparative analysis among the six locations chosen for the study to select the best suitable LDS as per the local

conditions has been depicted in Table 11.

Table 11. Final Ranking of LDS

AHP DAHP Rank

Site A 06.79% 06.47% VI

Site B 16.70% 16.30% IV

Site C 25.52% 25.98% I

Site D 17.43% 18.01% III

Site E 22.42% 23.23% II

Site F 11.14% 10.01% V

The results are also been presented graphically as bar chart in Figure 7.

Figure 7 Final Ranking of LDS.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F

AHP

DAHP



6. Results and Discussion

6.1 Prioritization of factors by DEMATEL

The analysis of Total Relation Matrix depicted as Table 6 and CER diagram given in Figure 6 shows that Environmental

Factor (F3) is the most important factor having the largest (r+c) value ie. 19.47, whereas Financial Factor (F6) is least

important factor having the smallest (r+c) value ie. 15.88. According to the degree of significance, the magnitude of the

factors are recognized as F3>F4>F5>F2>F1>F6. And also the (r-c) values helps to classify the factors into:- (1) Cause

Group and (2) Effect Group.

6.1.1 Cause Group Factors

Factors with positive (r-c) value are classified as „Net Causer‟ or „Cause Group‟ which directly affects other factors and

their degree of impact are proportionate to their numerical values. The CER diagram shown as Fig.6, reveals that,

Environmental Factor (F3), Hydrology and Hydrogeology Factor (F4), Social, Legal and Political Factors (F5) are fall

into the Cause Group, since their (r-c) values are 1.63, 1.61 and 0.75.

6.1.2 Effect Group

Factors with negative (r-c) value are classified as „Net Receiver‟ or „Effect Group‟ and largely influenced by other

factors. Accordingly Transport Factor (F2), Receptor Factor (F1) and Financial Factor (F6) are fall into the Effect Group,

since their (r-c) values are -0.92, -1.25 and-1.82.

6.2 Ranking of sites by AHP

Ranking of sites by AHP has been worked out separately with global weight obtained from AHP method as well the

DEMATEL method. The end results of both the methods agree that Site 'C' is most preferred and Site „A‟ is least

preferred. The order of preference is Site 'C' > Site 'E' > Site 'D > Site 'B' > Site 'A‟.

7. Conclusions

This paper presents a hybrid model of MCDM approach by integrating DEMATEL and AHP to identify the most suitable

site for disposing of MSW from Greater Chennai Metropolitan Area. The study was based upon a set of factors and key

criteria, which were selected based upon the already available knowledge from research literature as well as the pre-

existing local level factors of the area. Even though the basic factors to be assessed for LDS are universally the same,

different area may have different sets of local conditions. The uniqueness of the current study stems from the fact that the



Environmental Factors were consider as the crucial governing factors for selection of suitable LDS for MSW. Even

though the AHP method and the integrated DEAMTEL and AHP methods are yielding to the identical results, the

integrated approach converged into more precisely distinguished the goals. This helps the waste planners from pitfall of

selecting a wrong LDS which follows very close to the best one with marginal difference. The superiority of the

proposed integrated MCDM method stems from its inherent flexibility in its application to dissimilar sites with diverse

local conditions[24].

References

1. Gupta, S., Mohan, K., Prasad, R., Gupta, S. & Kansal, A. “Solid Waste Management in India: Options and

Opportunities.” Resources, conservation and Recycling, 24, 137-154, 1998.

2. Sujatha. P. and Janardhanam. P.V.S., Solid waste management in Chennai city, IJ of Education and Information

Management, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2012.

3. Adros, Z., Some aspects of solid waste disposal site selection: the case of Wadi Modaneh, Jordan. IJ of

Environmental Studies 66 (2), 207–219, 2009.

4. Application of ANP and DEMATEL to evaluate the decision-making of municipal solid waste management in Metro

Manila, 2015.

5. Wahyu Eko Setiawan, Ilyas Masudin And Fien Zulfikarijah, Supplier Selection with the Integration of DEMATEL

and AHP: A Literature Review, Proceedings 8th International Seminar on Industrial Engineering and Management,

University of Muhammadiyah Malang, Malang, Indonesia, 2014.

6. Dalkey, N. C., & Helmer, O., An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management

Science, 9 (3), 458-467, 1963.

7. P. J. Rao, V. Brinda, B. S. Rao and P. Harikrihna, “Selec-tion of Landfill Sites for Solid Waste Management in and

around Visakhapatnam City-A GIS Approach,” AJ of Geoinformatics, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.35-41, 2007.

8. M. Rahman and A. Hoque, “Site Suitability Analysis for Solid Waste Disposal Using GIS: A Case Study on KCC

Area,” The Journal of Geo-Environment, Vol. 6, 2006, pp. 72- 86.

9. Raje, D.V., Wakhare, P.D., Despande, A.W., and Bhide, A.D., “An approach to assess level of satisfaction of the

residents in relation to SWM system”, Journal of Waste Management and Research, Vol. 19, pp. 12-19, 2001.



10. Suresh.B and Sivasanka.S., Identification of suitable site for urban solid waste disposal using GIS and RS

techniques. A case study of Virudhunagar municipality, India, IJ of Geomatics and Geosciences, Volume 5, No 2,

2014.

11. Higgs.G., Integrating multi-criteria techniques with geographical information systems in waste facility location to

enhance public participation. Waste Management & Research, 24, 105–117, 2006.

12. Hokkanen, J., Salminen, P., Choosing a solid waste management system using multicriteria decision analysis. EJ of

Operational Research 98, 19–36, 1997.

13. V. Akbari, M. A. Rajabi, S. H. Chavoshi and R. Shams, “Landfill Site Selection by Combining GIS and Fuzzy Multi-

Criteria Decision Analysis, Case Study: Bandar Abbas, Iran,” World Applied Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 39-47,

2008.

14. Chang, N.B., Parvathinathan, G., Breeden, J.B., Combining GIS with fuzzy multicriteria decision-making for

landfill siting in a fast-growing urban region. Journal of Environmental Management 87 (1), 139–153,2008.

15. Gupta, U.G. and Clarke, R.E. ,„Theory and Applications of the Delphi Technique: A bibliography (1975-1994)‟,

Technological Forecasting and Social Change 53, 185-211, 1996.

16. Etraj.P. and Jayaprakash.J., Prioritizations of GSCM Criteria by DEMATEL method for Government Public

Procurement in Indian Perspective, Proceedings 10th

International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Control,

Karpagam College of Engineering”, Coimbatore, India, 2016.

17. Chang, Betty, Chang, Chih-Wei, & Wu, Chih-Hung, Fuzzy DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection

criteria. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 1850-1858, 2011.

18. Saaty, Thomas L. Relative Measurement and its Generalization in Decision Making: The Analytic

Hierarchy/Network Process. RACSAM (Review of the Royal Spanish Academy of Sciences, Series A,

Mathematics), 2008.

19. Etraj.P. and Jayaprakash.J., AHP to select Environmentally Conscious Supplier for SSCM: A Case Study, Advance

Mechanics and Materials, Vol.813-814, pp 1133-1139, 2015.

20. Calli, B., Mertoglu, B., Inanc, B., Landfill leachate management in Istanbul: applications and alternatives.

Chemosphere 59, 819–829, 2005.



21. Barjinder Bhalla, M.S. Saini and M.K. Jha., Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Leachate Treatment

Efficiency by Leachate Pollution Index, IJ of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3,

Issue 1, 2014.

22. S. Mohan and R. Gandhimathi, “Solid Waste Characteri-zation and Assessment of the Effect of Dumping Site

Leachate on Groundwater Quality: A Case Study,” IJ of Environment and Waste Management, Vol. 3, No. 1-2, pp.

65-77, 2009.

23. Önüt, S., Soner, S., Transshipment site selection using the AHP and TOPSIS approaches under fuzzy environment.

Waste Management 28, 1552–1559, 2008.

24. Bilgehan Nas, Tayfun Cay, Fatih Iscan and Ali Berktay, Selection of MSW landfill site for Konya, Turkey using GIS

and multi-criteria evaluation, Environ Monit Assess 160:491–500, 2010.

Corresponding Author:

P.Etraj*

Email: [email protected]

Documents

INTEGRATION OF DEMATEL AND AHP FOR MSW LAND … · 2017-04-15 · decomposing the complex decision making problem into a much simpler one by using the paired comparison s to weigh